Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Privacy The Almighty Buck

Spyware Removal is Big Business 454

Posted by michael from the $15-per-hour dept.
prostoalex writes "Just when you thought all the software niches were taken, IDC comes out with the report saying $12 million was spent on spyware removal tools in 2003, and $305 million will be spent in 2008. IDC also estimates two-thirds of PC users out there are infected. Large PC vendors are waking up to the spyware threat, having their call centers overwhelmed with spyware-related calls."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Removal is Big Business More

Spyware Removal is Big Business

Comments Filter:
  • It's the best way of getting free beer I've found: fixing spyware related problems for family and friends. While I watch SpyBot and AdAware do their job, I get free beer. There are worse activities ;-)

  • Wonder how long... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:30AM (#10973790) Homepage
    ... before the anti-spyware vendors start bundling spyware?

    • Re:Wonder how long... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zorilla ( 791636 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:33AM (#10973816)
      Measure that in negative values. AOL ships Viewpoint Media Player, a known spyware, with their client, which supposedly also includes anti-spyware software.

      • Re:Wonder how long... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jfoust2 ( 43840 )
        Whoops, hit Submit accidentally.
        There's so many spectrums of spyware these days. How many Windows apps, free or not, phone home after installation or at every run? Uhm, yeah, they're only "checking for updates". Even some Windows device drivers (like some printer drivers) phone home. You don't know what any of these programs are sending, or how often they send it.

    • Re:Wonder how long... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oexeo ( 816786 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:34AM (#10973834)
      There are already many examples of this, spyware companies do it to destroy their competition (i.e. remove competitors spyware, but not theirs)

    • Re:Wonder how long... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HanClinto ( 621615 ) <hanclinto@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:35AM (#10973841)
      This isn't the problem in question so much as anti-spyware vendors marking certain spyware companies as "harmless" and ignoring them for pay.

  • Woo (Score:2, Funny)

    by Claire-plus-plus ( 786407 )
    wooo wooo the bandwagon is going past *jump*. Phew it almost went without me

  • And it's too bad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:32AM (#10973811)
    ...that the vast majority of this spyware was installed by exploiting vulnerabilities (some overt, some more roundabout) in primarily Internet Explorer.

    And once an ordinary user is compromised by one piece of spyware, it's usually a downhill battle.

    Imagine how different the situation would be if, for the last several years, there had been real competition on the browser scene. Of course, there may never have been a way to solve the problem with the courts anyway: they DID decide that Microsoft illegally used its monopoly position to bundle IE, but Microsoft knew exactly what it was doing. By the time the slow wheels of justice had turned, Microsoft's browser takeover was virtually complete.

    And during this entire time, IE fundamentally was stagnant. There were glaring, egregious security issues, and no new features that had already become pervasive and popular with alternative browsers (popup blocking, tabs, etc., not to mention a lack of horrible inattention to security). I imagine Firefox's recent uptick in usage illustrates, even after all that, just how bad IE sucks. But this will only be good for Microsoft, and for everyone: if Microsoft feels it has competition from things like Mac OS X in OSes and Firefox in browsers, we get developments like SP2. We get a new "commitment" to security. We'll ostensibly get new features in and an attention to security in IE. (Well, we can dream, right?)

    I wonder how many dollars have been spent, or how many families have actually bought new computers (yes, it happens), once their PC slows down and/or crashes, hangs, or has other problems, to the point that it's virtually unusable. Yes. People really do this. They don't feel they can or know how to just wipe the machine and reinstall Windows, and even if they did, they don't know how to save everything they want to. So they just buy a new computer.

    • Re:And it's too bad... (Score:5, Informative)

      by stecoop ( 759508 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:36AM (#10973857) Journal
      ...in primarily Internet Explorer.

      Yeah you can look at the rate of change in browser usage. The fastest growing market in terms of percentage growth is the Mozilla family - I dont know of any spyware getting through Mozilla yet.
      • They're trying. While surfing through the web, I've seen multiple times that an .xpi asked me to "OK" its installation...
        • So? If it tries, as long as you don't click "yes", that's OK. Perhaps (in order to protect non-techies) FF/Moz should alter that alert to say something about spyware, or make it less obvious (just a little icon in the corner?).
          • How about a popup window that notifies the user that something tried to install software, or run a signed applet (with more privileges) on the computer - and that this functionality is disabled by default in the browser until the user explicitly sets an option to enable it.

            Yesterday, for the first time, I was warned by Firefox that the site (don't ask :^) I was visiting
            1) tried to install software and
            2) Wanted to run a signed applet (with a seemingly fake cert from "Thawte consulting").

            To protect th

        • Re:And it's too bad... (Score:3, Informative)

          by ssj_195 ( 827847 )
          In the latest versions of Firefox, all .xpi installs are blocked, except from sites included in a very small whitelist. The user is informed that a site has tried to install software, and that you must explicitly add the site to your whitelist if you want it to install. It's not a perfect solution, but it does at least add to the number of steps required for someone to install a .xpi on their system.

          In the end, though, the only way to combat user stupidity is through education (an uphill struggle) or b
    • ...that the vast majority of this spyware was installed by exploiting vulnerabilities (some overt, some more roundabout) in primarily Internet Explorer.

      Actually, believe or don't, the vast majority of spyware I've had to remove over the years, has been knowingly installed by the user. It has only been the users lack of knowledge of what the actually software does that has allowed it to be installed (incredibly, even after knowing, some people wanted the software placed back on their machines.

      Admittedly

    • Re:And it's too bad... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kjs3 ( 601225 )
      vast majority of this spyware was installed by exploiting vulnerabilities

      Not true. Our non-trivial (several thousand PCs) analysis of spyware at my company shows that the majority of the spyware initially infected machines by piggybacking on other programs that the users installed, such as iMesh, Gozilla, eWallet, etc. They didn't need a vulnerability, just a not-very-observant user.

    • I would say business do it all the time, speaking from experience.
    • Yeah, that's an old story at this point. Been going on for two years or so. One problem is, it often cost less to just buy a new PC and have a friendly geek save all their old stuff. This is, of course, because most PCs don't come with full copies of Windows. Most PCs come with a disk image on CD that will overwrite _everything_.

      So that leaves people with the option to purchase Windows at retail for roughly the price of a cheap PC, or they can spend 50% more and get a newer, shinier one. I know plent

  • $15/hour? Well, maybe in the call center. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:33AM (#10973817) Journal
    I'm a mercen... er, I mean, an independent technology consultant out in the field, and when someone has so much malware on a Windows XP box that they can't even log in to the poor beast, they're generally more than happy to pay psychic-hotline rates to get someone out there who can and will fix it for them.


    I travel with a frequently-updated set of tools for exorcising various demons from PC's, and am accustomed to mucking about in the registry, winsock stacks and other oh-so-fun places to finish up the job.

  • Open source spyware removal utilities? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tcopeland ( 32225 ) * <tom@NoSPaM.thomasleecopeland.com> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:34AM (#10973832) Homepage
    Googling didn't bring up anything helpful... I can see a couple of possible barriers:

    - most developers aren't clicking on email attachments
    - it's tedious work; rooting around in Windows Registry and system folders isn't fun
    - it'd need to be constantly updated to be effective

    It's a tough row to hoe...

    • A fourth reason - free-as-in-beer, closed-source spyware removal utilities are already ripped off by unethical software companies (see here [spywareinfo.com] for an example), and this would discourage people from making open-source utilities that would be even easier to rip off.

  • meh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gerfervonbob ( 807303 )
    If only they knew how easy it is to remove.

  • comparison (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Claire-plus-plus ( 786407 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:35AM (#10973852) Journal
    WOuld we pay for a car if every billboard we passed was capable of taking control of the vehicle and making it drive to other billboards? I don't think so. Why then will we pay for windows.

    • Re:comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oexeo ( 816786 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:50AM (#10974005)
      WOuld we pay for a car if every billboard we passed was capable of taking control of the vehicle and making it drive to other billboards? I don't think so. Why then will we pay for windows.

      Why does every /. analogy involve a car?

      One of the fallacies in this analogy is that car hijacking billboards will probably kill you, where as spyware probably won't.

      • Maybe it's because slashdot is US-centric, in the US, US transportation is dominated by automobiles, and therefore the metaphor is more widely understood.

        Lugnut. ;)
        • Yeah, and I'm an Aussie, we were quick to adopt your favorite mode of transport. The city I came from (Perth Western Australia) apparently had more cars per capita than any city in the world in the 80s
        • Maybe it's because slashdot is US-centric, in the US, US transportation is dominated by automobiles, and therefore the metaphor is more widely understood.

          I can understand that, but I'm sure plenty of other widely understood things could also be substituted. Besides, it was simply an observation, I didn't expect to start a debate on it.

      • You know, if cars made stupid, unfounded comments like this...oh.

      • Re:comparison (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ronin Developer ( 67677 )
        Spyware won't kill you directly.

        But, after your bank accounts have been drained and your credit cards taken to their limits, you might wish you were dead.

        I had my identity stolen a couple of years ago. Buggers were allowed to open up accounts are large department stores without even a cursory check on their ID or validation of the info they put on the applications.

        Fortunately, one of the stores called to "verify" that I had opened an account and, as such, I was altered to the problem.

        My information qui

    • Re:comparison (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PetoskeyGuy ( 648788 )
      Because the Manufacturer already paid for every copy and buying computers WITHOUT windows is often even more expensive. It's a hidden cost.

      Why do you pay for a cayalytic converter in your car? It works fine without it, or you can install one yourself cheaper.

      Most people are never given the choice of making a purchase and deciding what bits they want or don't want. Given the choice most people wouldn't have the skills to take advantage of the savings.

      Think convenience, think McDonalds.
  • But build your own market has never been easier with MS windows.

    THe ULTIMATE irony is if M$ sold thier own spyware-removal tool...

    Also, there are so many fraud looking sites selling a million an one spyware removal tools...

    Sorry, but educating users on easy removal of software, and mandating all software should be easily removable (an OS binary tracker which tracks file creation etc would be nice!).

    Also, any software that breaks these 'principles' can be defined as malware, and is criminal. obviously th

  • For years now we've all know it was big business. Ad-Aware and SpyBot S&D just to name a couple. I've been running these ever since I had highspeed internet.

    Ans this is front page news?

  • The REALLY nasty malware... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:39AM (#10973900) Journal
    In my opinion, most spyware is easy enough to get rid of using tools like Spybot-S&D, SpySweeper and AdAware. The one category that I've found harder to remove are the ones that embed themselves into the Winsock chain and redirect network features.

    I cleaned out one PC last month - it wasn't infected too bad, only several dozen things for the scanners to complain about, and I've dealt with systems that had several hundred! - but even after everything seemed to be gone, its default search URL and things like that kept getting hijacked. I had to grab a tool to fix the Winsock chain; some malware had slipped itself in there and was screwing things up.

    • In my opinion, most spyware is easy enough to get rid of using tools like Spybot-S&D, SpySweeper and AdAware. The one category that I've found harder to remove are the ones that embed themselves into the Winsock chain and redirect network features.

      Just finished a 3-day trip to disinfect a remote office. My findings were a combination of Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Hijack This would find most spyware, but to actually remove it required multiple reboots into safe mode and manual deletion of registry keys, EX

  • This is why Apple is un-American (Score:5, Funny)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:40AM (#10973905) Homepage
    Just think how un-American Apple computer is. Do Macs contribute to the growing anti-spyware business? Hardly at all! Why almost no money is being made removing spyware from Macs. Why hardly anyone has heard of spyware for Macs in the first place. Can you imagine taking bread from the mouths of the little children of anti-spyware software developers? Won't someone please think of the children?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:40AM (#10973909)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Daily Spyware (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gmerideth ( 107286 )
    Its 9:32 am my time and since 6:55 am I've been at 4 computers removing a combination of spyware on what we thought were fully patched (at least windows update and hfnetchk pro claims are fully patched) systems.

    It's almost a daily event at our office, wake up, get to work, drink coffee, remove daily spyware....

    This is one group of our population I would gladly invent a story about a giant goat about to eat earth just to get them the hell off.

  • Prosecution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:41AM (#10973926)
    Is there any remote chance of getting these spyware authors prosecuted. Where does the law stand on this? After all, it's in the US where all sorts of law suites can be entertained by courts.

    My argument woud be that these authors are invading my privacy when I legitimately get onto the web.

    On the other hand, I will shoot myself in the foot by seeing their potential argument too:

    They could argue that by visiting specific sites and probably clicking some links, I agree to enjoying all services they offer on these sites including stuff that would be installed on my PC.

    Any legal minds here?

  • Spyware removal is big business? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:41AM (#10973928) Journal

    And, this is news? It's sort of like announcing "Hey, the Moon causes the Ocean Tides to Rise and Fall"

  • Spyware removal is huge business for me! (Score:4, Informative)

    by 31415926535897 ( 702314 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:41AM (#10973932) Journal
    I can tell you that spyware removal is about 90% of my consulting (side) business these days. I can usually rake in an extra $300-500 / month thanks to all the spyware problems. I feel bad when I have repeat customers, but I do spend a good amount of time educating the users and immunizing their PCs, but they always find new ways of getting spyware on their computers (it always seems to be the kids and their p2p "needs"...).

    Now, as an industry, I don't understand why so much money was spent. There are outstanding tools and tutorials on removing every type of spyware, and every it seems like all the best ones are free.

    If you want any pointers or tips on spyware removal, and you don't live in my area :-), I'll be glad to help you anything I can.
  • A jump from 12 to over 300 million dollars is a big estimate. I wonder if the people who put these things together understand much about the computer industry and how spyware works. There is a large demand for it now, obviously, but I'm skeptic that it will grow as they predict. Even Internet Explorer is much more careful about spyware now, and they've got several years before that projected date comes to pass. Sure people will still click "Yes" and get it, but I find it hard to believe the rate of infe
  • It really is a losing battle, we don't need better tools or more IT people to combat spyware. What we need is more education of users and less use of IE. Time and time again I show my boss how the Firefox users never have any trouble, this is for 2 reasons, people willing to use firefox are generally more tech savy and browse smartly and of course because it is more resistant to that crap than IE(understatement).

    My attitude is to make the users suffer and then blame there browsing habits when they piss an

  • Normally when we want to get something done from our systems division we create a help desk ticket and we have options to choose like if it is software or not. Now we have a special one called "spyware". Spyware is indeed very big now. With ~90% intenet users still using IE and their ignorance in visting random sites can easily compromise their computers with spyware.

  • windows is partially at fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:52AM (#10974046)
    If microsoft made some changes to windows, this crap would have a harder time getting installed (or at least getting installed unnoticed)

    Basicly, anything that wants to change certain things should trigger a "are you sure you want to do this" warning of some kind (with ways to change that warning into a requirement for a password or a total block of the activity). If the activity is blocked, the app requesting it gets an appropriate error (e.g. "you cant open that file" if access to a file is blocked)

    The items that should be locked include:
    Writing to the "startup" group & other locations where you can have a program start at startup
    Writing to
    Changing critical windows sockets settings
    Changing the HOSTS file
    And there may be other things

    The idea is that spyware/viruses/trojans/etc that come in totally unannounced would now not be able to do that.
    And spyware and such that rides alongside application programs would be easier to spot (so you can choose to use a non-spyware alternative)

    Yes the cluless will just click "yes" but at least those who care wont be hit as much.

    Anti-virus vendors should start detecting spyware (particularly the kind that installs itself jsut by visiting a webpage or reading an email as opposed to the kind that installs alongside programs like kazza) just like they detect viruses.
    After all, spyware shares a fair few characteristics with viruses, worms and trojans.

    The big PC OEMs should be doing more to combat spyware.

    Myself, I use Mozilla (and keep it up to date with the latest release builds) and I use Norton
    Antivirus to keep my system virus free.
    I also run Spybot and Ad-Aware regularly.
    And I dont install spyware-laden programs like Kazza, Real etc.

  • Why not illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dubdays ( 410710 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:53AM (#10974058)

    I find it terribly sad when companies/people/drones/the family pet/etc. need to fork out a ton of cash just to prevent assholes from taking over their computers. Viruses (Viri?) have caused this for years, and it's completely illegal to create such a program. But, so far, it's still legal in most places (albeit unethical) to distribute this garbage.

    Yes, it's really an IE/Windows problem, which is a whole other argument. I know users need to be better educated (or educate themselves), but that still doesn't help my Grandma who can barely seem to find the escape key. I understand this. But still, why should this still be allowed?

    On a side note, does anyone know of GOOD network/client-server spyware removal software, either free (as in beer or freedom) or commercial? Just curious...

  • Two thirds??? (Score:2, Informative)

    by mediaslave ( 32167 )
    I am a consultant for a small IT firm in Manhattan. We do a lot of small businesses, home businesses, and even home clients. Spyware turns out to be the culprit in probably 90% of our "my computer is slow/not working" calls we get these days. We make it mandatory for all of our techs to install and run Spybot and Ad-Aware on any machine we work on, and I have NEVER seen (or even heard of) a machine with no spyware on it. The third of machines that are uninfected must not have internet connections. Even

  • Pretty Big Business (Score:2, Informative)

    by EntrancedX ( 827523 )
    I used to work for a "big retailer" and I saw how much business the on-site "computer technicians" were making from Spyware cleanup. Well... $50 a pop. The funny thing is they were using Ad-Aware only to provide this "great service" for their customers. So as long as there are customers willing to pay all this money for such a service, then the business is going to be booming. *Ohh yeah... using Firefox may help a little.

  • Anti-virus adding anti-spyware? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JSBiff ( 87824 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @09:59AM (#10974114) Journal
    I deal with this at work all the time. To me, spyware/malware isn't that different from a virus, and the logical thing is that symantec/mcafee/panda/etc add spyware/malware detection to their current anti-virus offerings.

    In theory, they already have. We have Symantec A/V 9 installed on our the computers at work. There is actually an option to tell it to scan for spyware/malware. The problem is, it seems to be be able to find a lot of it, but then is unable to actually remove it most of the time.

    So, we end up having to run ad-aware to actually remove the spyware/malware. It's silly that we need Spybot for immunization (to make it difficult for the spyware to install in the first place), plus ad-aware for spyware removal (it seems to do a better job of removing than Spybot does, but doesn't provide the immunization feature), plus Symantec A/V 9.

    Symantec, are you listening? Would be nice to have a comprehensive solution that works *all the time*. We're already paying big bucks for your anti-virus software, you could at least get it to work well for all threats. . .
    • I suspect that anti-virus vendors are moving into the anti-spyware business. But maybe that's not good. A while ago, I asked myself, who don't anti-virus companies research more preventative measures against worms and viruses, such as selling secure email clients. The conclusion I reached is that like the medical industry, the anti-virus industry profits from the symptoms, so preventative measures would reduce overall profits. The same could be said for spyware removal tools. If spyware removal is now big

  • Since I'm not a computer tech/programmer (Score:4, Funny)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:02AM (#10974148)
    I'm thinking about exploring the Spyware Writer Removal Service niche instead...
  • "A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some gla
  • anti spyware is good business: CA just bought up pest patrol, even though they had a joint marketing thing going with Zone Alarm. All I am getting as a result is some additional junk mail from PP/CA and as reported in /., PP aint that great anyway.
  • My daughter and I will be doing spyware removal as a summer job in an affluent suburb of Chicago. (I teach HS chemistry.)

    IPO will be next fall. ;)

  • mmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis.gmail@com> on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:17AM (#10974302) Homepage
    Windows:
    Have to pay for anti-virus, have to pay for firewall, have to pay for spyware removal, have to pay for a copy of windows and then you have to pay someone to set it up.

    *BSD/Linuxes:
    Have to pay for someone to set it up.

    Hmm... and the TOC of Linux is higher because...?

    Tom

  • Making a killing (Score:2, Interesting)

    by karn096 ( 807073 )
    Places like Bestbuy are making a killing on this whole Spyware Removal Industry. They currently charge $40 for Spyware Removal, which will usually include an Additional $40 for Virus removal. I work at Bestbuy doing this, and I've seen some pretty nasty infections, i've seen computers infected with literally 1000 instances and the only way to fix it is to boot in safe mode, or just take the hard drive out and scan it in another PC. Fun. And from what I've seen Spybot and Adaware unfortunately dont even get
  • You pay for an OS which puts the burden of proving you paid for it on you...

    Pay for anti-virus software to keep it from being porked by every 15 year old script kiddie on the planet.

    Pay for spyware removal tools on top of that to keep it running at some functional level.

    And after a couple years of paying for all that you get the privilege of paying for yet another buggy piece of crapware OS and start the cycle all over again.

    Is that pretty much the gist of it? Wow, getting such a great deal it's ha

  • Somebody Please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by einer ( 459199 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:26AM (#10974423) Journal
    Someone please make a live cd that destroys spyware. Even if it just starts a wine session and runs adaware or spybot or whatever.

  • Upgrade to XP SP2. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tassleman ( 66753 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:28AM (#10974445) Homepage
    We did at the office and have seen a serious decline in Spyware related calls. We used to get 10 or more a day for Windows 2000.
  • I got sick of this and people complaining about it, so I wrote a short "guide" to keeping a Windows machine saf eonly using free (or open source) software.

    http://www.boomspeed.com/akito/Windowmaintence.txt [boomspeed.com]

    Pass it around, send comments. Whatever, it's very basic so idiots should get it.

  • Too much spyware and NO Login Connection on AOL (Score:3, Informative)

    by lcsjk ( 143581 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:34AM (#10974528)
    Three days ago I helped a friend who could not get connect her modem to connect to AOL. I tried everything including uninstalling AOL and deleting registry entries until my eyes got blurrry. Re-installed to find that AOL still pulled up her ID and Password from somewhere. I even called AOL support to get a new password - still no connection. I used Hyperterminal to call the AOL number and connected so I knew the system should connect.

    Finally, I ran a copy of AD-AWARE and SPYBOT-S&D from a CD I had with me. After removing nearly 200 data miners and some files, the system connected on the first try. I have not yet notified AOL of the problem, but I expect others have had the same problem.

  • VMware is one solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Werrismys ( 764601 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:34AM (#10974534)
    Well not solution, but it helps on small sites with fast enough workstations with 768+M RAM. Run debian or some other lean, stable linux distro under the hood, run VMware in fullscreen mode on top of it. Use different virtual disk for "Documents and Settings" folder. Install all the proprietary win32 crap you need, backup the virtual system disk and set it up so that it overwrites the system disk on every real boot. If you don't need SMB browsing and printers, you can further protect Windoze by using NAT networking so the virtual machine is not visible on network. You can still use SMB/CIFS disk shares and CUPS printers (2K and XP support CUPS somewhat). Running winblows under VMware is 100 times preferable to wasting perfectly good hardware to a dedicated, "real" installation. And it's cheap, v3->v4 upgrade is currently 99 US$ + VAT. Another plus: as admin, when installing new software, just make a snapshot of the VM state, then install the proprietary crap, and if it breaks anything, just restore snapshot and you timewarp to pre-fuckup state. Excellent!

  • The Mac marginalized again (Score:3, Funny)

    by DieByWire ( 744043 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @10:43AM (#10974643)
    This is just another example of a market that Mac users are being excluded from. All the opportunities you miss when you own a Mac.....

    Maybe I'll give up and join the Borg.

  • broken window fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yorkpaddy ( 830859 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @11:00AM (#10974861)
    wikipedia: Broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org] This says that if someone says, look at that broken window, it stimulated the economy because it created work for the glassmaker and glazier. This seems reasonable at first, but it isn't. The country had to use economic resources to reach the same utility it was at before the window was broken. If broken windows really stimulated the economy, countries would bomb themselves to stimulate the economy.
    • If broken windows really stimulated the economy, countries would bomb themselves to stimulate the economy.

      Close, but not quite. The current philosophy is to bomb other countries. This serves two purposes. First, it props up big defense contractors. Secondly, it props up large, corrupt companies who are paid obscene sums of money to rebuild other countries after we get done sending them back to the stone age (only so we can blow them up again, of course - starting the cycle over again).

  • McAfee and Norton (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SammysIsland ( 705274 ) on Thursday December 02, 2004 @11:02AM (#10974885)
    What I can't seem to figure out is why Norton and McAfee didn't include spyware detection and removal in their virus detection software from the beginning. I remember specifically reading something on Symantec's site that said something to the effect of "we are not targeting any 'spyware'".

    Wouldn't this have saved a lot of problems? How is spyware not considered malicious?

    Over and over again, I have to sit at friends' computers and rescue them from the evil clutches of the browser hijackers and such. I think Symantec and McAfee dropped the ball on this one.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close